P. Mota

In this criminal trial on a charge under s. 88 of the Criminal Code, the central issue was whether the accused possessed a concealed machete for a peaceful purpose or for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The defence argued a culinary purpose tied to purchasing coconuts and sugar cane and submitted the machete was swung once in self-defence after an unprovoked punch.

The court accepted the independent civilian and police evidence, rejected key parts of the accused’s testimony as implausible and unreliable, and found the post-incident handling of the machete supported an inference of consciousness of guilt.

Applying the governing framework for s. 88 offences and the proportionality analysis under s. 34 self-defence principles, the court concluded the possession was for an offensive dangerous purpose.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand after being stopped for careless driving.

At the police station, the accused made six attempts to provide a breath sample into an Intoxilyzer 8000C but failed to provide a suitable sample, claiming she had chronic bronchitis and the flu.

The court found that the accused was provided a reasonable opportunity to provide a sample but intentionally failed to do so by faking her attempts.

The court rejected her medical condition as a reasonable excuse, finding her testimony evasive and inconsistent with the video evidence.

A finding of guilt was entered.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit following a traffic stop.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging that the police failed to make an approved screening device demand forthwith after forming reasonable suspicion, contrary to s. 254(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, and that the delay infringed ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found several unexplained delays in the investigation and concluded that the officer did not act promptly, rendering the seizure of the roadside breath sample unconstitutional and requiring exclusion of the Certificate of Analysis.

The court further held that, even absent the Charter breach, the accused’s “last drink” defence supported by corroborating testimony and expert toxicology evidence raised a reasonable doubt about the accused’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving.